IntroductionWelcome! This page
provides ideas, resources and links to relevant websites
for STSE Education;
i.e., learning about conceptions in
relationships among (and the nature of) fields of science
& technology and societies & environments.
Although not found in all curricula around the world, it
is listed first among three goals for science and
technology education in Ontario,
where most of my work occurs.

If you have comments, questions,
suggestions, resource ideas, etc. about anything
here, write
to me about them.

Meaning of STSE Education

'STSE'
stands for relationships among: Science, Technology, Society & Environment.
Such relationships are depicted at right, although -
as shown below
- the 4 items are more overlapping than portrayed
here. Although STSE education
prioritizes understanding relationships,
it also is important to have realistic
conceptions of each element - including about
the nature of science and technology (NoST), the
nature of societies (e.g., sociology)
and the nature of environments (e.g.,
ecology and environmental sciences).Particularly
important in studies of STSE relationships are controversies
arising from different opinions about some
relationships - often related to various
political positions. I believe,
however, we must focus on potential harms.

.

Given the STSE model
above is, likely, somewhat misleading - in that it
suggests separation of the four elements in it - perhaps
the model below is more realistic, recognizing societal
and environmental embeddedness of science and
technology; and, recognizing possibilities for
overlapping of goals, procedures and outcomes of science
and technology. It also stresses needs for foci on Sociopolitical ('WISE')
Activism to overcome Socioscientific
(STSE) Harms.

STEM Education and STSE Education

With
advent of 'STEM'
education initiatives, one might add engineering &
mathematics to the STSE mix; ie 'STEM-SE.' Although
the model below may do this reasonably-well, we have
to keep in mind that - at least based on actor-network theory - that
STEM fields are dynamically and, to a great extent,
unpredictably, interrelated with many or most other
'entities,' including living, non-living and symbolic
entities. Such a view makes it extremely difficult to
depict science and technology (or STEM) in any kind of
static, two-dimensional, way. Nevertheless, such a
STEM-SE schema may be important to emphasize, given
that many STEM education initiatives appear to limit
considerations of many societal and environmental
relationships - particularly those regarding adverse
effects of powerful people and groups on STEM
fields and, in turn, wellbeing of individuals,
societies & environments.

Rationale for STSE Education

Although science has traditionally
been studied separate from other subjects, studies of
STSE relationships has become more common. This seems
to have occurred due to more general awareness of harms linked to
science and related fields. Fields of science and
technology have led to many societal advances. Many
medical and surgical treatments, such as heart surgery
and antibiotic treatments have saved and/or prolonged
human lives. Communication tools, such as open-access
aspects of the Internet, have helped people share
ideas and cultural perspectives, etc. Such
relationships need to be celebrated. However, where
there are harms (or hints of harms) like those
noted below and here,
they likely should be addressed:

Fats, sugars, salts, etc. in
manufactured ‘foods’;

Medications that are not
adequately tested;

Automobile pollution; e.g.,
toxins as 'smog';

Poor labour conditions in
electronics' manufacturing;

‘Screen time’ (e.g., TV-viewing)
and obesity;

Data-mining to tailor
advertizing;

Carcinogens and nicotine in
cigarettes;

Deforestation for cattle and
hamburgers;

Patenting of life forms;

Climate change due to fossil fuel
burning;

Death etc. from the
military-industrial complex; etc.

Although there is much
controversy about causes of harms in STSE relationships,
many scholars and others suggest that excessive human
orientation towards for-profit production and consumption
of goods and services is largely at fault. John McMurtry (1999),
a prominent philosopher and social commentator, says that
we are in the 'cancer
stage
of
capitalism' - in which 'cells' (capitalists) within
us are damaging our 'bodies' (humanity). It seems clear
that many products of science and technology, supported
by companies and financiers, are generating much
social and environmental degradation. Perhaps because of seriousness
of problems like those mentioned at left, STSE
Education is part of school science and
technology curricula. It is, however, a
neglected aspect of students' education in
many educational situations. It is common, for
example, for STSE to be addressed in terms of
telling students about many positive products - such
as medical devices, etc. - that may be attributed to
science and technology. Possible negative STSE
relationships are seldom mentioned, particularly as
they may relate to adverse influences of powerful
individuals (e.g., financiers) and groups
(e.g., corporations). Without attention to such
potential power-related harms, humanity's harms are,
clearly, likely to persist and/or get worse. As
indicated by the STSE framework above,
humans are intimately connected to all other living
things and their non-living environments. We can
either choose to influence these in positive or
negative ways.

As mentioned above, STSE is part of some
official curricula - such as for Ontario
schools. It is apparent, however, that many STSE
goal statements (and those, as discussed below, in many
STEM education initiatives) tend to be oriented towards
positive 'applications' of science and technology - a
tack tending to suggest that science and technology are
'good,' 'successful' and 'beneficial.' While that is not
untrue in many cases, there are a number areas of STSE
relationships about which we should be concerned (see WISE Problems). A useful
way of analyzing and planning for STSE Education along
these lines has been developed by Derek Hodson (2003).
He suggests that there are four 'levels' of commitment
to STSE education; that is,

Appreciating
societal impacts of scientific and technological
change, and recognizing that science and technology
are, to some extent, culturally-determined.

Recognizing
that decisions about science and technology
developments are taken in pursuit of particular
interests, and that benefits accruing to some may be
at expense of others. Recognizing that scientific
and technological development are inextricably
linked with distribution of wealth and power.

Developing
one’s own views and underlying value positions.

Preparing for
and taking actions to address harms (adaped from p.
655).

I believe that
students need to focus on all four such categories of
STSE education.

Noting,
as did Hodson (2003), that learning in one
domain (e.g., STSE) can affect and be
affected by learning in another domain
(e.g., Skills), and acknowledging his call
for socio-political actions to overcome
harms, I created the STEPWISE framework
above. In this schema, all teaching and
learning is oriented towards 'STSE Actions';
that is, action(s) students might take to
use their literacy (i.e., the elements
around the periphery of the framework
above) to try to improve wellbeing of
individuals, societies and/or environments
(WISE). For example, to address poor
eating habits in school cafeterias,
students could use their knowledge of
Canada's Food Guide (Products Education),
awareness that food companies may
sacrifice nutritional value for profit
(STSE Education), and findings from their
own studies of students' eating habits
(Students' Research) to lobby school
administrators to organize more
nutritional food choices in the cafeteria.
For students to be comfortable and
motivated to conduct such projects, we
have found that a more
linear version of STEPWISE can help
and, for them to address harms in
terms of influences
of powerful people (e.g., financiers) and
groups (e.g., corporations) on fields of
science and technology (and much more
...), our research strongly suggests
that teachers need to directly teach about
such relationships.

Educational
researchers, politicians, teachers, etc. have choices in
ways in which they represent relationships among fields
of science and technology and societies and environments
(STSE). Some choices I want to be used in S&T
education, which tend - I believe - to be avoided in
many science/STEM education initiatives, can be
understood via the schema below:

The
above schema is meant to depict relationships between
the 'actual' nature of science & technology
(S&T) in different contexts (on the left) and ways in
which S&T may be portrayed in education (on the right). Conversions
between left and right in the schema can be considered
to be kinds of translations. As in translating
between two languages, there may be inefficiencies or
mis-translations; here, called "gaps." Some may be
unavoidable, such as ontological gaps (e.g., due to
differences in composition of people and descriptions of
them) and epistemological gaps (e.g., due to different
research methods used to depict S&T). Ideological
gaps in translations, though, are intentional.
There is much evidence, for instance, that many STEM
education initiatives - and many science education
programmes - tend to avoid references to roles
of "Powerful Entities" in influencing STEM fields
shown on the right above. I believe, like several
colleagues, that it is students' democratic
rights to be informed about such problematic
aspects of STSE relationships.

STSE Education Pedagogy

Teaching
students about STSE relationships is, in many
ways, not unlike teaching for other learning
expectations (e.g., Products of S&T).
Based on constructivist
learning principles, for instance,
students often have pre-conceived notions
about topics teachers intend to teach.
Students' pre-conceived notions can influence
how they interpret ideas, perspectives,
experiences that teachers provide. With this
in mind, teachers might consider using my constructivism-informed
pedagogical framework for their STSE
Education. Some specific examples of
activities based on this three-phase framework
are provided at right.

Expressing
Ideas. Teachers may, for example, ask
students to list several inventions (e.g.,
cell phones, nuclear weapons, heart surgery)
and brainstorm and debate benefits and
hazards associated with each one.

Learning
Ideas. Teachers could use, for
example, various case
methods; that is, activities
('methods') that get students to interact
with case studies ('documentaries') about
some STSE issue; e.g., at: Action
BioScience.

Judging
Ideas. Students can - in various
ways - make judgements about which STSE
perspectives to believe. 'Town-hall
Debates,' in which students role-play
different positions on STSE issues are
excellent. They also can form opinions
as they take actions
on issues/harms.

Assessment and
evaluation (A&E) of students' expertise
regarding STSE relationships
is complex. It should be carried out
differently, depending on the phase of the
instructional model being used. When getting students to
express (demonstrate) their pre-instructional
STSE ideas, for example, it is important to
encourage them to freely express their ideas -
knowing there are no 'right' answers.
Accordingly, A&E at this stage should
emphasize effort. During the 'Learning Ideas'
phase of the instructional model, on the other
hand, teachers can use more traditional A&E
techniques - since the purpose in that phase of
learning is to teach particular ideas, concepts,
etc. However, because there is much controversy
about whether or not STSE relationships are
positive or negative (often due to a person's political
stance), all A&E in STSE Education
must be flexible - allowing for different
perspectives, as long as they appear logical.
Indeed, room must be reserved for students to
decide what STSE relationships make most sense
to them. This represents the Judging Ideas
phase of the constructivism-informed
instructional framework. This is a crucial part
of STSE education, since decisions about STSE
relationships and action(s) stemming from them
can - philosophically - only be made in the
context of 'real-life' situations, involving
many, often simultaneously changing and
interacting, variables. For example, decisions
about production and use of such manufactured
foods as potato chips are controversial and can
only be made through negotiation among various
'stakeholders'; such as among company
representatives, consumers, government
officials, scientists, lawyers, etc.Some specific
suggestions for A&E in the area of STSE
Education are provided at right.

Assessment/Evaluation
Suggestions/Resources

Check curriculum
guidelines for instructions about which STSE
relationships to emphasize, noting that many or
most of these are controversial and, therefore,
students may need to learn opposing views and,
then, make decisions for themselves about which
relationships make most sense to them in
particular situations. Note that, in Ontario,
teachers are only required to evaluate 'Overall
Expectations.' 'Specific Expectations' are
provided by the government as examples; not
as requirements.

When helping students to develop expertise
based on the model above,
consider these guidelines:

Expressing Ideas. Since this phase
encourages students to freely express their
ideas, evaluation should be based mainly on
effort and, if it's been taught, the degree of argumentation.

Learning Ideas. Although many STSE
relationships are controversial, it is
reasonable for teachers to A&E students'
understanding of various positions; including
through quizzes/tests, assignments, etc.

Judging Ideas. To ensure students
are free to evaluate different STSE
perspectives, A&E needs to be very flexible
and based mainly on students' effort and degree of argumentation.

Procedural Education. Students may
or may not have expertise necessary for
Expressing, Learning and Judging Ideas. They
may, therefore, need a procedural education -
such as that addressed through Inquiry-Design
Education.
Principles of S&E for this kind of
education are similar to those outlined
above.

STSE Education
Resources

As indicated above,
there are different teaching approaches for STSE
Education. There are, accordingly, many possible resources
in support of various approaches. Many of these are
located at: STSE web links.
A very popular STSE Education approach is the 'case method'; that
is, activities
('methods') that get students to interact with case
studies (also called documentaries) about some STSE
issue. Several of these are provided at: Action
BioScience. Some case methods are available for
field-testing by writing to me.